The video outlines some of the more popular denier themes (and deniers) around Gore's Inconvenient Truth - like somehow discrediting Gore is a way of discrediting the body of literature around human-made climate change.

The tag-line at the end of the video is the best part: “Don't let fear ruin your day, learn the facts.”

And according to the Heartland Institute, the “facts” around climate change are not to be found in the scientific literature. Instead, we can learn “facts” about climate change from the self-professed “expertise” as aired on CNN's Glenn Beck Show and Martin Durkin's discredited “Great Global Warming Swindle” documentary.

If the Heartland Institute is so convinced of a global warming hoax, why are they not sponsoring the likes of Dr. Tim Ball to develop an hypothesis that challenges the consensus view on climate change and conduct research? Such a thing would no doubt put them on the map much more than harping on about Al Gore.

Wow, that’s about the most out to lunch comment I have seen posted on this site and I have been seeing John Dowel, Zog and Eco Hitler post for a long time. Climate theory aka mans understanding of the climate system isn’t science at all! Congrats we’ve hit an all new low. Apparently all than mumbo jumbo about finding out the heating potential of greenhouse gases isn’t empirical, and that measuring watts per squire meter of various forcing, has no numbers. In addition, changing the atmosphere of the planet is an experiment on its own, increase one aspect, monitor the result. Measure changes in the sun’s output, measure the result….non of that is falsifiable…gah, and that’s just scratching the surface in addressing that post…..what have all those climate scientists been doing…..not science aparently……truly painful, how about posting something that is factually correct you’re running low odds on doign that

Just because I think you need a review of the scientific method, I borrowed this from Wikipedia. It is quite well written

Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these hypotheses for accuracy. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may assist in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.

Characterizations (Quantifications, observations[9] , and measurements)
Hypotheses[10] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)[11]
Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[12] from hypothesis and theory)
Experiments[13] (tests of all of the above)

There is no such thing as the theory of anthropogenic global warming, global warming is component part of climate theory, in the understanding of our climate system, that encompasses a greater whole. There is no significant scientific deviation in that understanding of climate meaning all major climate organizations, do not dispute that global warming is caused by human induced forcing on climate. Though I would like to hear how climate theory has failed to live up to the scientific method. What I really don’t understand is how you can claim:

a) It is not logically falsifiable

b) It is not empirically testable

The components parts of understanding climate are well studied using the scientific method, they are tested, and experimentations conducted. As example greenhouse gases are investigated in their radiative forcing, their heating potential using experiments, their spectra of absorptions, their concentrations monitored using various instruments and methods, and their effects on climate are modeled Various models are generated to well model the climatic system based on understanding gained from experimentation and hypothesis testing of many aspects of climate (from the sun, to the reflection indices of the surface). Models suggest that the current warming is caused by human influences from increased greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere based on the understanding of the climate system i.e. the scientific understanding of the climate phenomina..that is how science works in all fields. Just in case…a model can be tested, if the predictions of the model fail, or in the climate case cannot explain the past temperature record or make accurate predictions that do not hold true then a model has not lived up and has been falsified. But a model alone is a small aspect of understanding climate theory, it encompasses many experiments which contribute to a greater body of science….aka what you say is in no way true at all, but instead of spending the remaining parts of this post rambling I would like to hear you explanation for how climate science is not science?

This type of smug and supercilious tactic seems to be second nature with you, doesn’t it?

“I borrowed this from Wikipedia.”

First you presume to “educate” me, and then you cite … Wikipedia? Truly priceless.

“There is no such thing as the theory of anthropogenic global warming”

This is a facile gambit on your part, at best. You attempt to frustrate the question by denying it’s validity. But it gets better:

“The components parts of understanding climate are well studied using the scientific method, they are tested, and experimentations [sic] conducted.”

Here you go into a long-winded, and extraordinary circumlocution, alluding to several technical terms to bolster your facade of expertise – and yet you never once answer the specific question.

“As example greenhouse gases are investigated in their radiative forcing, their heating potential using experiments, their spectra of absorptions, their concentrations monitored using various instruments and methods, and their effects on climate are modeled Various models are generated to well model the climatic system based on understanding gained from experimentation and hypothesis testing of many aspects of climate (from the sun, to the reflection indices of the surface).”

If you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with bullshit, eh? One hell of a run-on sentence though; a true paragon of post-modernism.

“Models suggest that the current warming is caused by human influences from increased greenhouse gas emissions”

Models are not an empirical test. Try again.

“but instead of spending the remaining parts of this post rambling I would like to hear you explanation for how climate science is not science?”

What the hell? You spent the preceding part of your post rambling, so why stop now?

Why would you ask me such a question? At what point did I say “climate science is not science”? Have you stopped beating your wife?

At no point have you addressed the specific issue that AGW is not logically falsifiable, or that it is not currently empirically testable.

Well its quite easy considering from my perspective you post things that demonstrate your complete lack of scientific background or understanding. You toss about claims about the scientific method or understanding of climate yet have not demonstrated any, but ill let others rush to your defense if I am wrong. You know, I’ve run 1 research project, in the process of publishing 2 scientific papers in a journal; I can’t help myself in stating I understand the scientific method. My apologies if this comes off sounding smug, but I’d like to think I understand how it works. I mean if you can counter by pointing out your expertise and rationale behind understanding climate and absence of empirical tests and being able to carrying out experiments with a null hypothesis I would be more than willing to listen. Other than making the claim you really have no given an example how this is the case without providing any scientific rationale.

Wikipedia while by no means perfect is a solid resource for getting basic understanding. Besides why go through typing it all out when it’s already there and easy to cite and give due credit.

Well, if you can find an article in a journal that specifically states global warming is called the theory of anthropogenic global warming then can make claim there is such a theory. I don’t believe this is the case, though if you can cite a scientific paper saying this specifically then will have convinced me. You made the claim, support it, otherwise it’s just a name you made up and has no scientific basis.

My example of the empirical testing and falsifiable experiments in understanding the role greenhouse gases is not bullshit. If you wish to check the following are papers which I base my understanding from. I only have hardcopy so you’ll have to look them up.

Scientific understanding of climate by its own nature of data collection and hypothesis testing meets the criteria of following the scientific method. As stated before a model is a representation of an existing body of already present scientific data. Greenhouse gases, surface albedo, landscape usage, etc they have all be studied following the scientific method. Thus a model is a portrayal of the empirical data collected from a number of experiments. A model itself can be tested from actual measurements to determine its projections are accurate. If a model predictions fall outside a confidence interval with p values greater than 0.05 at a specific data point or series of data points then it is significantly different from a data set. Thus it can falsified or at least can be said the model doesn’t incorporate enough aspects to be able to accurately predict a phenomena.

I’ve more than thoroughly addressed how climate science is science and follows the scientific method, with empirical data collection and experiments with a null hypothesis. If you disagree there isn’t much I can do to convince you…… I’ll let others judge my argument

Another reason for banning him (from the DeSmog point of view) is that he’s clearly the only one who, up to now, has posted on this thread and has the faintest clue about the nature of science. He made a valid point, and all any of you can do is obfuscate and evade.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Keep In Touch

With the news of Willie Soon's fossil-fuel-funded career featured on the front page of The New York Times on Sunday, there's no time like the present to take a look at all of Soon's friends in the anti-science climate denial echo chamber.